Rebuilding and extending 14-19 partnership working in London to improve participation, progression and transition for young people

May 2013

Ann Hodgson and Ken Spours Centre for Post-14 Research and Innovation Institute of Education, University of London

The Institute of Education has been commissioned as the Academic Partner to London Councils: Young People’s Education and Skills, who have funded this research.

Copyright London Councils 2013 Executive summary

1. This report focuses on 14-19 partnership working across London in order to map the current condition of partnership organization and activity and to consider ways in which collaboration might be developed to improve opportunities for young people in the current national and regional contexts.

2. The research methodology comprised a mix of desk research; an electronic questionnaire sent to all local authority (LA) 14-19 leads; consultations with 14-19 leads representing 20 boroughs and two feedback events.

3. Partnership working in London has been taking place against a challenging economic and political background with changes to 14-19 curriculum and qualifications, institutional and governance arrangements and performance measures alongside reductions in local authority expenditure. While LAs are still statutorily responsible for ensuring that there is adequate 14-19 provision for the whole range of learners in their area and have a central role in supporting Raising the Participation Age (RPA) to 17 in 2013 and 18 in 2015, they are having to seek new ways of carrying out these functions.

4. Using both earlier conceptual frameworks and the data from this study, an analytical grid for mapping and analysing the breadth and depth of partnership working across the Capital was produced. A summary assessment of partnership organization and activity in each of the 20 boroughs can be seen at Appendix 1.

5. The national context described above has affected all London boroughs, but it appears to have had a differential impact. Some partnerships have fared better than others and this has depended on the rootedness of 14-19 collaboration; the degree of trust between education providers and the local authority; the level of local political commitment to the 14-19 phase; how adversely a particular LA has been affected by expenditure cuts and how far schools have been prepared to work with and buy back LA services.

6. Following the difficult period between 2010-12, there now appears to be an upward trajectory of 14-19 partnership activity based on the need to implement RPA; the emergence of a post-16 performance agenda linked to Ofsted; responses to continued government reform in this area and the pressing need to tackle youth unemployment.

7. The research suggests that this resurgence could be attributed to:

   - Commitment by elected members and senior LA officers.
   - LA leads rebuilding a 14-19 team by co-ordinating the efforts of officers with related roles (e.g. those with responsibility for school improvement, apprenticeship and economic development or the youth service).
   - 14-19 leads acting as a ‘champion for young people’, fostering good relationships and taking an even-handed approach to all providers.
   - The fostering of good relationships between the LA and education and training providers, with an emphasis on personal contact and networking.
   - Being a source of data and up-to-date and reliable information about national, pan-London and local policy.
   - Being prepared to adapt 14-19 partnerships in terms of structures and ways of working.
   - Using current national policy agendas (e.g. RPA) in an expansive way.
   - Gaining education provider buy-in either through subscriptions or through seed-corn funding and then goodwill.
   - Carefully reading different policy contexts in order to initiate new initiatives and forums for engaging local institutions and other key stakeholders.

8. At the same time new challenges and potential foci are emerging that will require further innovation:

   - Apprenticeships and opportunities for youth employment.
   - 14-19 curriculum and qualifications changes, with particular attention being paid to what has been termed the ‘overlooked middle’ (Hodgson and Spours forthcoming).
   - The development of a stronger vocational learning offer across London.
   - A focus on post-16 performance and improvements in teaching and learning.
   - Links between education/training and economic regeneration agendas.
   - Cross-borough working to realize efficiency gains and to address issues on a wider scale.
   - Learning from the rich and diverse practice in relation to 14-19 activities taking place across London. A. Introduction

The Project and its research approach (January – March 2013)

1. London Councils commissioned the Centre for Post-14 Research and Innovation at the Institute of Education, University of London to be its ‘academic partner’ for 14-19 education and training during the period 2012-2015.

2. During 2012 the Centre produced a major report on 14+ participation, progression and transition to further study and work in London (see http://www.ioe.ac.uk/research/64695.html).

3. Building on this work and following discussions with the YPES Board and London Councils, two projects were agreed for 2012/3: a. Improving young people’s 14+ participation, progression and transition through partnership b. Researching 17+ drop out/progression issues and successful strategies for tackling them.

4. This report focuses on the first of these. It aimed to examine 14-19 partnership working across London in order to map the current condition of partnership organization and activity and to consider ways in which collaboration might be developed to improve opportunities for young people in the current national and regional contexts.

5. The research methodology comprised: • Background research and a review of relevant literature, leading to a development of a conceptual framework. • An electronic questionnaire on partnership working sent to all local authority 14-19 leads. • An event introduce the project to 14-19 leads and to discuss ways of working with them. • Consultations with 14-19 leads representing 20 boroughs to discuss their partnership organisation and activities in depth. • Analysis of the data from the survey and visits to assess the main developments in 14-19 partnership and to draw out examples of strategies to support collaboration. • Two feedback events – one for the Young People’s Education and Skills Board and the other for 14-19 local authority leads. • Production of a final report.

B. Context – national and regional

The national reform agenda

1. Since the election of the Coalition Government in May 2010, there have been reforms in almost every aspect of 14-19 policy. In terms of 14-19 curriculum and qualifications, the Government has stressed the role of traditional general education, with the introduction of the English Baccalaureate performance measure at Key Stage 4, the move towards more linear assessment and external examinations at GCSE and now A Level and a focus on grammar, spelling and punctuation (DfE 2010). At the same time, the Wolf Review of 14-19 Vocational Qualifications (Wolf, 2011) and the subsequent government response emphasised the value of apprenticeships, work-based learning and internship; strongly criticised many of the vocational/applied qualifications that schools and colleges had been using with 14-19 year olds; highlighted the value of programmes of learning for 16-19 year olds, including the continuation of English and Mathematics and called for an end to the use of equivalences between general and vocational/applied awards in performance tables at 16+.

2. All of these measures, which were swiftly acted upon by the Department for Education, effectively reversed many of the policies of the previous government and have meant significant upheaval for curriculum planners in schools, colleges and work-based learning providers, as well as major changes to learner programmes of study in Key Stage 4. The impact of these reforms is now being felt by schools, colleges and work-based learning providers in London (as elsewhere), with 14-19 leads reporting that responses to the curriculum and qualifications reforms is rapidly rising up local agendas.

3. The institutional landscape has also changed significantly with an acceleration of the academies programme, the introduction of Free Schools, University Technical Colleges and Studio Schools and a greater emphasis on competition between providers. Further education colleges are also having to radically rethink their role within the learning and skills landscape as they consider the options available to them under the greater autonomy they are now encouraged to exploit. With greater institutional autonomy has come a sharper focus on accountability – new inspection frameworks and a wider range of challenging performance measures.

4. While local authorities are still statutorily responsible for ensuring that there is adequate 14-19 provision for the whole range of learners in their area and have a central role in supporting Raising the Participation Age (RPA) to 17 in 2013 and 18 in 2015, they are having to seek new ways of carrying out these functions. Moreover, this is being undertaken in a climate of increased institutional diversity and autonomy and cutbacks in staffing across many aspects of local authority working.

The London economic, social and educational contexts

5. London is an economically dynamic global city, able to attract highly qualified and talented individuals, not only from the UK but also from around the world. It is an exceedingly wealthy city and the level of affluence generated by London ripples out across the South East of England more generally. At the same time London has the highest proportion of families in poverty (28% compared with 22% nationally) and these families are concentrated in certain boroughs or parts of boroughs (Duckworth, 2012). There are also high levels of worklessness among some London residents, with many young people finding it difficult to enter the labour market (ONS, 2011). London is thus socially and economically polarized.

6. In terms of education and training, however, London has fared relatively well in recent years, particularly in terms of GCSE and equivalent examination scores. This is due to the impact of London Challenge, high performing grammar and independent schools and the effectiveness of inner London boroughs in raising levels of attainment despite high levels of deprivation (Mayor’s Education Inquiry, 2012). However, as the research undertaken for London Councils in 2012 indicates (Hodgson and Spours, 2012), this momentum has not been maintained post-16 and London has lower than average cumulative A Level scores compared nationally. It also has relatively high AS failure rates at 17+. Nevertheless, by 19 London catches up with other areas of England in terms of Level 3 attainment. London is also distinctive in other respects insofar as it has more young people staying on in school sixth forms at 16+ than elsewhere, although further education colleges increase their participation share among 17-19 year olds. London students are also very mobile and 50% travel out of borough post-16 (Hodgson and Spours, 2012).

7. In our earlier report, *Young people’s participation, progression and transition to higher study and work: A London perspective* (June 2012), the challenges in relation to 14+ participation, progression and transition in the Capital were summarized as follows:

- The difficulty of ensuring that all young people have access to impartial Careers Education Information Advice and Guidance (CEIAG) in a highly competitive institutional market.

- The problem of progression to A Level study from Key Stage 4, particularly for the middle attaining group, which contributes to what has been referred to as the ‘17+ dip’.

- The possible persistence of the ‘poverty penalty’ attached to A Levels (i.e. that young people from lower socio-economic groups lag behind those from higher socio-economic groups in terms of performance at A Level).

- The compensatory role played by broad vocational qualifications at 18 and 19 which helps raise London’s Level 3 performance at age19 to just above the national average.

- The strong performance of higher education in London and London undergraduates.

- The low level of work-based learning opportunities and the nature of the London labour market, which affect all levels of provision, including higher education. C. Conceptualising 14-19 partnerships

1. Research on 14-19 partnership working has been relatively neglected since 2010 because of a reduction in policy emphasis on institutional collaboration, lack of funding for research on this topic and the need to rethink this area of work in the new policy and economic climate. Nevertheless, it is useful to reflect on some of the analytical frameworks that emerged during the period 2003 to 2010 and to see how far they can illuminate the current 14-19 partnership landscape.

Factors influencing partnership working

2. Two frameworks for 14-19 collaboration are examined briefly in this section and are brought together to inform the creation of an analytical framework for the current context in London.

Figure 1. Shaping partnerships

3. Figure 1, is taken from the work of Higham and Yeomans (2010). They are commenting on the period between 2002 and 2009 when national policy was actively encouraging collaboration between schools, colleges and work-based learning providers as part of the 14-19 reform agenda. This diagram was designed to explain the role of three fundamental shaping factors that affected the nature of partnership working – national and local policy levers, local contextual characteristics and institutional imperatives and cultures. These three shaping factors are still relevant to the context in London in 2013, although their relationship and the relative strength of each of them has changed, a point that appears to have been well understood by the 14-19 leads interviewed.

*Figure 2. Dimensions of partnerships*

4. Higham and Yeomans (2010) have also written about the nature of partnership working in terms of four dimensions – depth, inclusivity, scale and focus (see Figure 2). These ideas have been used to inform the development of an analytical grid (see Figure 4), particularly in relation to the dimensions of partnership organization.

‘Strongly collaborative local learning systems’ and ‘14+ progression and transition boards’

5. Alongside these two conceptual contributions we have drawn in this research on two further concepts of partnership that suggest the development of collaborative local systems for 14-19 education and training. We consider these to represent an expansive model of 14-19 partnership working. The first of these is what have been termed ‘strongly collaborative local learning systems’ (Hodgson and Spours, 2006).

6. In addition to the dimensions of partnership working outlined in Figure 2, the concept of strongly collaborative local learning systems suggests a comprehensive strategic approach which connects fundamental purposes, curriculum and qualifications, professionalism, institutional structure, funding, quality assurance and joint education and economic agendas and planning. These ideas have been used to inform several of the dimensions of the analytical grid at Figure 4 and, in particular, Column 3, which lists more expansive dimensions of partnership organisation and activity.

Figure 3. Dimensions of strongly collaborative local learning systems

7. We have also based our thinking on what we identify as a strongly collaborative local learning system in action in the form of ‘14+ Progression and Transition Boards’ (14+ PTBs). These expansive partnerships are beginning to emerge in different parts of the country as local authorities and their social and educational partners adapt to the new economic and policy climate and seek to highlight issues of 14+ progression and transition to further/higher education, apprenticeships and the labour market (Hodgson and Spours, forthcoming).

8. 14+ PTBs are vertically integrated overarching networks of schools, colleges and work-based learning providers, employers, voluntary and community organisations, regenerations agencies, higher education institutions and local authorities. 14+ PTBs can provide a forum for joint action as well as for information sharing, discussion and deliberation. If fully operational they can: • Extend high quality courses and programmes at all levels throughout the 14-19 phase with an emphasis on learner progression. • Assist in the formation of coherent pathways for all learners at 14+, with a particular focus on those who are not following a traditional GCSE/A Level route. • Improve the quality of teaching and learning and the professional dialogue between pre- and post-16 providers. • Support the development of the employability and entrepreneurial skills of all 14-19 year olds. • Undertake intelligence gathering and communication about progression and destinations for all learners. • Share information about short- and long-term local and regional labour market opportunities. • Develop systems for high quality and impartial CEIAG. • Secure greater opportunities for apprenticeships and employment. • Establish a convincing and motivational civic and economic narrative for the locality.

9. The key indicators of the effectiveness of 14+ PTBs would be improved participation and attainment post-16; more young people gaining the confidence and skills to participate effectively in higher study and a greater number making a successful transition to apprenticeship and employment.

An analytical grid to map 14-19 partnership organization and activity

10. We have used these theoretical models and evidence from visits to London 14-19 leads to create a two-dimensional framework for mapping and analysing the breadth and depth of partnership working across the Capital. The grid could be summarized as:

14-19 partnership organisation (11 dimensions) + 14-19 partnership activity (16 dimensions)

X

The breadth and depth of partnership working on a continuum from low to high. Figure 4. Analytical grid for mapping 14-19 partnership organization and activity

| Partnership organization | Low | Medium | High | |---------------------------|-----|--------|------| | 1. Partnership history/background | Weak partnership history – affected by increased competition | History of partnership but not developing in the new context | History of partnership & reshaped in the current policy context | | 2. Structure | No main partnership, but some groups | 14-19 partnership but undeveloped infrastructure | Developed 14-19 partnership with working groups | | 3. Leadership | No designated 14-19 lead person | 14-19 lead but with diverse responsibilities | Dedicated 14-19 lead & team | | 4. Seniority of membership | Senior managers not represented on 14-19 partnership | Limited senior management participation | Senior managers playing an active part in all aspects of partnership | | 5. Meetings, communication & decision-making | Infrequent meetings, information sharing | Regular scheduled meetings – primarily discussions | Calendar of meetings – info sharing, discussions and decision-making | | 6. Role of local authority | LA taking hands off stance towards 14-19 with little support from institutions | LA supportive but having to scale back on 14-19 – varied institutional support | Proactive LA & actively supporting 14-19 agenda with institutional buy-in | | 7. Range & commitment of partners (e.g. schools, colleges, WBL providers, employers, HE, Connexions, LA, regeneration agencies) | Limited involvement from all partners | All education providers involved but not all wider stakeholders | All relevant partners involved | | 8. Mission and purposes | No clearly defined mission and purposes | Mission & purposes defined but not driving partnership actions | Mission & purposes regularly reviewed and guiding actions | | 9. Focus/breadth of collaboration | Limited focus (e.g. RPA, CEIAG, NEETs) linked to national agendas | Mainly focused on national policy, limited local agenda | Comprehensive focus linked to national and local agendas | | 10. Strategic planning and future direction | No systematic strategic planning | Strategic planning in some areas (e.g. NEETs) | Comprehensive short, medium and long-term planning | | 11. Working collaboratively beyond borough boundaries | Focus purely on borough agendas | Limited collaboration beyond borough boundaries | Extensive collaboration at sub-regional, regional and national levels | | Partnership activity | Low | Medium | High | |----------------------|-----|--------|------| | 1. Information sharing forum | Irregular events around national policy priorities | Attempts to look at how national policy impacts on local practice | Regular updates and discussion re: national, local & regional agendas | | 2. Data sharing | No data sharing | Data sharing without the use of institutional names or joint action | Extensive transparent institutional data sharing leading to decision-making | | 3. RPA | Limited to discussion and strategies for NEET reduction | RPA regarded as important driver of 14-19 partnership and emerging broader RPA agenda | Expansive concept of RPA linked to improving provision, progression and transition for all groups | | 4. CEIAG | No real discussion & outsourced | CEIAG discussion but varied practice | CEIAG network & agreement/joint work & guarantees for young people | | 5. Shared course information/prospectus | No shared course information or prospectus | Limited joint information used by some providers | Openly supported & promoted 14-19 course information & prospectus | | 6. NEETs | Limited to statutory requirements in this area | Local collaborative NEETs strategy emerging | Creative strategy for tackling NEETs improving provision, progression and transition for all groups | | 7. Shared 14-19 provision & curriculum development | No shared provision or joint curriculum development | Some shared provision in particular areas | Extensive 14-19 shared provision & associated curriculum development | | 8. LLDD/SEN/ looked after children/inclusion | Limited to statutory requirements in this area | Some joint in the inclusion area | Creative strategy for inclusion based on 14-19 collaborative working | | 9. Work experience/work related learning | No joint work-related activity - left to individual institutions | Work-related activity for some learners/progammes only | Work experience & work-related learning as entitlement for all 14-19 year olds | |----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | 10. Vocational provision & Apprenticeships | No discussion of vocational provision & apprenticeship | Discussion of vocational provision & apprenticeship but no joint action | Collaborative strategy for building vocational provision & apprenticeship | | 11. Progression to HE | Discussion of HE progression limited to individual providers | Limited number of partnership links with HE providers | Collaborative strategy for supporting progression to HE | | 12. Economic development & regeneration | No economic development agenda | Some economic information in connection with 14-19 agenda | Clear relationship between 14-19 provision and local economic development agenda and agencies | | 13. Introducing new providers | No discussion of introduction and role of new providers | Consideration of possible new providers in the local area | Active collaborative strategy for new providers as part of the partnership | | 14. Quality assurance & peer-to-peer support | Not considered part of 14-19 partnership working | Some quality assurance and peer-to-peer support around particular areas of need | An active and formal quality assurance system involving peer-to-peer support | | 15. CPD and staff development | No joint CPD/staff development activities | Some joint CPD activities | Joint 14-19 CPD programme | | 16. Shared resources (e.g. website) | No shared resources | Shared resources in one or more areas | Shared resources in a number of areas (e.g. staffing, website & facilities) |

11. Following consultations with 14-19 leads representing 20 boroughs, the extent of partnership organization and activity has been mapped onto this grid to produce an initial picture of the condition of 14-19 partnership working in London (see Appendix 1). The grid could also be used as a self-assessment tool by borough 14-19 leads to produce a more accurate and textured assessment of partnership. working currently and to identify areas for future action. London Councils could also usefully provide a regional forum where individual borough assessments could be discussed and areas of good practice shared to support the development of more expansive partnership working for the benefit of all of London’s 14-19 year olds.

D. Findings from the survey and the borough visits

Introduction

1. In this section we report the main findings from the electronic survey sent out to all London 14-19 leads and consultations with 20 boroughs, using the related dimensions of the grid – partnership organisation and partnership activity as a way of reporting our findings.

The electronic survey 2. A survey to map broad patterns of partnership working across London was developed by the Institute of Education researchers in conjunction with London Councils officers and was sent out to all London boroughs. It was intended to provide a background for dialogue with the 14-19 leads and to lay the basis for a more in-depth qualitative approach to researching partnership working. A total of 26 borough based responses was received and the main findings were as follows:

- 16 out of the 26 boroughs stated they had a main partnership that considers all 14+ education and training issues, some with a range of sub-groups for discussion of specific aspects of 14-19 education and training.

- The 14-19 partnerships were attended by colleges and work-based learning providers in 100 per cent of cases, schools (94%), voluntary and community bodies (75%), higher education institutions (50%), regeneration agencies (50%) and employers (31%).

- The majority of these partnerships (56%) met more than four times per year.

- Most of the respondents considered their partnership to be effective, but in some cases, they noted that employers were not fully involved, attendance was patchy, too much was expected of the local authority, there was a lack of action, a relative absence of secondary heads and the partnership dealt with operational rather than strategic matters.

- All responding borough 14-19 leads indicated that their partnerships covered issues related to learners with learning difficulties and disabilities (LLDD); most covered those ‘not in employment, education or training’ - NEETs (90%); RPA (90%); making sense of data (89%); CEIAG (80%), developing and sharing provision (78%) and discussing attainment (67%).

- Fewer partnerships discussed supporting progression to higher education (50%) or work experience/work-related activities (38%).

**Themes arising from the visits - partnership organisation**

3. This section reports on the findings in relation to dimensions of partnership organization based on the visits to or meetings with local authority leads in 20 boroughs.

**Partnership history and background**

4. The history and background to partnership working across London boroughs is highly variable. A minority have a long history of collaboration between 14-19 providers stretching back to the 1980s, while other partnerships have developed more recently, either in relation to the LSC area-wide inspections from 2002 or as a result of the introduction and funding of Diplomas and the existence of a 14-19 entitlement from 2005-10. Amidst this variability, a historical pattern of five main period of partnership working in London has emerged:

   a. Pre-LSC (pre-2000) b. LSC area wide inspections (2002-4) c. Diplomas (2005-10) d. Cutbacks and confusion (2010-12) e. Reinvention and recovery (2012 onwards)

5. All partnerships have been subject to pressure since 2010, either as a result of cuts to local authority expenditure or through Government policy and the increased autonomy of schools. However, borough-based partnerships have dealt with these pressures in different ways, depending on their history or the particular context in their local authority and how these have impacted on 14-19 education and training.

**The role of the local authority**

6. As the education and training system has been gradually centralized since the 1988 Education Act, the role of local authorities in relation to their education providers has changed considerably. There has been constant debate around what functions they should have and how much should be devolved to individual institutions. However, local authorities are vital to 14-19 partnerships that co-ordinate the actions of the various partners and provide the opportunity for them to work together.

7. Since 2010 and the acceleration of the academies programme, the issue of what role the local authority should play in relation to the education and training providers in their area has been hotly contested and was one that 14-19 leads repeatedly raised with the researchers. It has great significance for them because of the overarching and system-wide nature of their role as 14-19 leads and their perception of what type of functions they can legitimately undertake and which should be properly be left to schools and colleges. As might be expected, the role of the local authority varies considerably from borough to borough depending on a range of factors. These include the degree to which a local authority has been hit by cutbacks; how far it depended on funding from Diplomas; the level of priority that elected members and senior local authority officials give to 14-19 education and training; the degree to which the local authority is using RPA as a new lever for 14-19 partnership activity and how far schools have stressed autonomy and moved away from the local authority in the recent period.

8. The combined effect of factors above has meant that the capacity of local authorities to co-ordinate 14-19 education and training has been significantly weakened over the past three years. However, the researchers found that local authorities were in a process of ‘reinventing’ themselves in an era of greater institutional autonomy.

9. Borough 14-19 leads suggested that local authorities were now seeing themselves in a set of diverse connective roles. They used the following terminology to refer to the function of local authorities in 2013:

- ‘The champion of young people’ – with the idea of education providers taking ‘collective responsibility for young people in the local population’.
- ‘Education champion for choice, quality and support’ with a focus on the needs of parents and their children.
- ‘Hands off with institutions’ but facilitating ‘provider-to-provider support’
- Only able ‘to focus on the vulnerable’.
- Building individual relationships with institutions and establishing networks. • ‘Shaping and influencing’ 14-19 providers and provision. • ‘Knowledge broker’ and ‘connector’. • ‘Even-handed broker’ and ‘provider of data’. • ‘Institutional challenger’.

10. In a number of authorities the 14-19 leads claimed that the education providers were having difficulty making sense of the constant stream of policies and were looking to the local authority for leadership in the area of 14-19 education and training, particularly in relation to curriculum issues. 14-19 leads suggested that the role of the local authority as a connector, facilitator and policy ‘sense maker’ needed to be balanced with a sensitivity to the autonomy of providers and the principle that any of the partners should be able to be involved to the level they think suits their needs. They felt that greater engagement was likely where there was no sense of enforcement but where peers were coming together to discuss and agree on actions related to complex problems.

Mission and purposes 11. Several borough partnerships have formal mission statements, a few of which stretch back to the period of the previous Government and in which they make clear the purposes of 14-19 partnership working. However, the degree to which these are updated and discussed varies. Several local authority leads were producing 14-19 strategic documents. In this more voluntaristic climate a restatement of mission and purposes appears to be closely aligned with the new demands of RPA. Strategic documents come in various forms (e.g.

• Statements of mission and priorities under the era of RPA. • Discussion papers consulting on the principles of partnership working in a new era. • Consultations or plans related to RPA. • Needs analyses of 14-19 education. • NEET strategies.

Leadership and structure 12. Patterns of partnership structure and leadership also vary across the boroughs visited. All boroughs have someone who is responsible for 14-19, although a few 14-19 leads are responsible for more than one borough and others have job descriptions that also cover other areas of work (e.g. school improvement). Only a minority of 14-19 leads appear to have an exclusively 14-19 role. Some boroughs still possess a dedicated 14-19 team, although all boroughs have seen their 14-19 teams reduce as a result of expenditure cuts and/or the demise of the Diplomas and their support funding. In many cases, the 14-19 lead operates alongside a wider set of advisors and local authority officers in the absence of a 14-19 team.

13. The extent of 14-19 organisation and structure also varies. In most cases overarching partnership groups continue to exist, although the frequency of meetings has been reduced. Some boroughs have even scaled these back to an annual event. These groups typically involve heads of institutions, LA services and external stakeholders. However, in some boroughs ‘operational groups’ that involve deputies, have ceased to exist altogether because they are seen as an additional layer of organisation. What appear to have survived relatively unscathed are single focus working groups concerned with areas such as RPA, CEIAG, NEETs, LLDD and data sharing. These are seen as fora for ‘getting things done’ and some boroughs have been inventive about initiating new groups to keep those below headteacher/principal level involved in 14-19 partnership working. Practice in some boroughs would suggest that when there is no overarching partnership, it is important that task and finish groups have a means of reporting to one another in order to ensure joined-up working. One example is a borough where there is an annual conference to which all task and finish groups report on progress to date.

The breadth and depth of partnership working

14. The breadth and depth of collaboration differs across the boroughs. Breadth refers to the number and range of partners involved. The depth of partnership working refers to the extent of commitment and action taken by the stakeholders involved.

15. By and large a wide range of partners remains involved in 14-19 partnership working. At the centre lies the relationship between the local authority and its secondary schools and this can vary across London; the role of other stakeholders has been weakened by recent policy (e.g. the demise of Connexions or the decline of Education Business Partnerships). Nevertheless, strategic 14-19 partnerships typically continue to involve schools, colleges and work-based learning providers, albeit at a lower level of activity than previously. However, not all partnerships are extensive and many do not involve wider local authority services such as economic development and regeneration, representatives from higher education or employers.

16. The depth of partnership working has been heavily influenced by the national policy agenda and the role that the local authority sees itself playing, how its statutory duties are defined and its relationship with providers. It could be argued that the level of commitment by institutions is strongest when they are able to set their own agendas and are convinced that partnership working will benefit their institution as well as the locality. Commitment can also arise when national agendas provide either a framework of regulation or financial support that requires some sort of partnership working. The fusion of institutional interest, national agendas and how these are educationally interpreted has led to engagement with issues such as young people at risk of NEET; responses to inspection; support for young people with learning difficulties and data sharing to improve performance.

17. Within this general pattern individual institutional engagement with partnership working in London varies considerably from a deep commitment to collaborative working to serve the needs of all learners in an area to insular institutions unwilling to work with others. In the middle lie many institutions that have a pragmatic approach in the current policy environment and are prepared to collaborate around certain issues, which they see as being of common interest and concern. These last two types are those that 14-19 leads feel they have to win to a collaborative agenda. However, those interviewed often made a distinction between the views of headteachers/college principals and other members of staff. It would appear that commitment to partnership working is stronger at the level below that of the headteacher or college principal. Even when a particular institution might remain detached from the 14-19 strategic partnership, teachers from that institution might elect to join a particular working group because of the practical benefits that might flow from it.

**Working collaboratively across borough boundaries**

18. While most London 14-19 leads focus primarily on issues within their own borough, several patterns of inter-borough working across London emerged during the research visits. In some areas sub-regional groups (e.g. South London Partnership) were established under the LSC and still continue to exist as networking and information sharing clusters. In addition new groupings of various types have emerged. These include: • The 'Inter-borough 14-19 conversation group' in North East London has been formed to provide information to each of the individual boroughs about what is happening in the travel-to-learn area.

• The North London Partnership works together to develop Foundation Learning across all providers in the travel-to-learn area.

• A group of six boroughs in North East London have collaborated on a European Social Fund project, which has as its focus the early identification of NEETs.

• A different type of inter-borough partnership working can be seen in West London, where two or three authorities have grouped together to provide a range of services related to 14-19 education and training, with one borough taking the lead. While this has often been the result of cuts in services, the outcome can be a better service for learners where borough boundaries are porous.

• Again in West London, a number of bi- or multi-borough operational task and finish groups have been established to work on issues such as the data that underpins transitions for young people, risk of NEET indicator work, alternative provision and post-16 progression.

• In South London, where partnership working was strong under the LSC, boroughs continue to work together around issues such as quality assurance and early intervention around NEETs.

19. While local authorities have always recognised the need for cross-borough collaboration because of the flow of young people crossing borough boundaries and the fact that work-based learning, apprenticeships and the youth labour market exist on a London-wide scale, as a result of reduced funding, policy and political changes they have seen the need to refresh their commitment to this type of activity.

Themes arising from the visits - partnership activities

20. This section of the report outlines the major activities that local authority leads highlighted during the research visits. Although we have reported on them separately here, they are often connected or grouped. While partnership organization, as the previous section shows, has been subjected to policy and financial pressure, there is no shortage of activities that requires collaboration. These appear to be shifting from sharing provision, which was particularly prevalent during the development of 14-19 Diplomas to activity focused on participation, progression and performance issues. So the breadth of partnership activity is at least as great as under the previous government and, in the absence of strong national drivers, 14-19 leads have had to be increasingly creative and sensitive about how they organize, co-ordinate and lead activities that engage a range of social partners. Under each of the 16 areas of activity we have highlighted one or more examples of good practice.

**Information sharing**

21. 14-19 education and training covers a broad area of educational practice and over the last few decades policy in this area has been both extensive and rapid, whichever political party has been in power. Moreover, the territory is complex because it spans education and the workplace, learning takes place in a range of institutional settings, which are constantly changing, it is the first time that qualifications enter the picture and these have been (and continue to be) under reform, and it involves a very diverse workforce. Busy practitioners not only find it difficult to keep up with the quantity of information that emanates from government departments, but do not have the space to make overall sense of the various consultation and policy documents or to consider in detail how they may affect their planning or practice. An information sharing forum for practitioners and other stakeholders who work with 14-19 year olds is thus of considerable importance, even if it is only for the purposes of keeping up with national and local policies.

22. *In all local authorities visited some sort of information sharing forum exists. In many cases this is the 14-19 partnership, but in other areas there will be a dedicated event or events that provide this kind of service to 14-19 education providers and other key stakeholders. In most local authorities a bulletin/report is produced and presented to these information-sharing fora. In cases where there are regular 14-19 partnership meetings a single theme (e.g. RPA, work experience, qualification changes) will often be chosen for each of the meetings in order to give time for more in-depth discussion. Local authority leads suggested that this type of approach is highly appreciated by both 14-19 education providers and wider stakeholders.*

**Data sharing**

23. One of the common areas for discussion at information-sharing fora is local authority generated data related to, for example, student performance in examinations, destinations data, and figures for those not in employment, education and training.

24. All boroughs produce these types of statistics, the differences lie firstly in the depth of the analysis, secondly, in whether they use a data partner, such as MIME or LPUK to support them (in which case there is likely to be more detail and texture) and thirdly, how these data are reported. In most cases borough data are compared nationally, but individual institutional data are reported anonymously. Where there is a history of partnership working and an element of openness and trust between providers, individual school/college data are compared and shared in order to stimulate improvement. One borough, working with MIME, has produced a particularly useful set of data for 16-19 providers which is used by the borough 14-19 lead as a way of opening a dialogue with each provider in the borough and to support improvement strategies.

RPA

25. All London boroughs are actively considering their strategies and approaches to RPA, although these are more highly developed in some local authorities than others. In many cases the need to address the requirements and implications associated with RPA has been the catalyst for renewed collaborative working in areas where 14-19 partnerships had disbanded or begun to lose their momentum. There is a realization by all 14-19 leads visited that this is an area of prime importance and one which can only be effectively tackled through partnership working. Moreover, there is a concern that it has not been adequately highlighted at the national level and that many education and training providers (let alone parents and students) have not fully taken on board what this legislation will mean.

26. Some local authorities are going beyond a narrow approach to RPA (e.g. concentrating purely on NEETs) and are taking a more expansive approach by focusing on a review of all 14-19 provision in the area and a discussion of how upcoming qualifications reform will affect this landscape. It is recognized that there is a need to provide appropriate programmes of study for all 16-19 year olds so that all remain in some form of productive education and training. CEIAG

27. Following the 2011 Education Act, a minority of the local authorities we visited have taken the Connexions Service work in-house and are continuing to provide a service to their schools. In the majority of boroughs schools are making their own arrangements for CEIAG. Without exception this is seen as a vital area of work for local authorities and in most boroughs there is a working/task group or network dedicated to CEIAG, most often operating as a sub-group of the 14-19 partnership. Local authority leads are aware of how central this area of work is in relation to RPA and of the importance of all young people being fully aware of the range of options available to them, with some concerns that this is not consistently happening in practice. There is a particular anxiety about whether and how young people and their parents get proper information about apprenticeships and vocational provision.

28. In one borough a ‘CEIAG protocol’ has been devised which goes well beyond the statutory minimum by gaining agreement from all providers that they will provide a minimum entitlement for their 14-19 year olds both in terms of career education opportunities and individual information advice and guidance.

Shared course information/prospectus

29. One of the ways that local authorities have found to support better CEIAG is through the production of borough-wide course information or a prospectus about what is offered in the locality. This is something that has historically formed part of 14-19 partnership agendas. Most boroughs are attempting to continue this practice and are using 14-19 partnerships or sub-groups to support them in this work. However, it is seen as increasingly difficult in some cases when competition between providers is intense, and it is not clear how actively some of the prospectuses are being used.

30. Nevertheless, innovative, shared practice continues. For example, in one borough an ‘opportunities pack’ describing all post-16 provision in the locality goes out to all Year 11 learners. Two local authority leads mentioned on-line information sites that provide details of all 14-19 provision and progression pathways in the locality, although one remarked that it needed to be more interactive. In addition, a number or borough produce information about alternative provision, often ensuring that there is some kind of kite-marking system so that providers can be confident about the quality of what is on offer. NEETs

31. There is considerable attention being paid to both NEET reduction and prevention as part of RPA. It is seen as central to the work of those responsible for 14-19 education and training. Local authority 14-19 leads are well aware of their statutory responsibilities in this area and are finding very effective ways of gathering data and ensuring early identification of those young people who are at risk of dropping out of education and training. Risk of NEET Indicators (RONIs) were mentioned by the majority of boroughs.

32. As with RPA, this is an area that is regularly reported on at 14-19 partnership meetings and several boroughs have strategies and dedicated working or ‘task and finish groups in this area. One interesting example of this type of working in one borough is a ‘quality commitment’ to support every young person to achieve full Level 2 (defined as five A\*-C grades at GCSE or equivalent) by 19. Providers inform local authority officers about young people who have not gained a full Level 2 by 16 so that they can be followed up individually. As a result of this work these young people have received personal support and the borough’s NEET and ‘not known’ figures have improved dramatically. In another borough where the Connexions Service has been disbanded, the local authority has set up its own NEET tracking service and uses its youth support team to undertake individual work with young people. In another borough there has been a focus on graduate NEETs and many have been successfully supported into work. The local university is now working with the borough to ensure that graduates having difficulty with finding employment are given more guidance and support.

Shared 14-19 provision and curriculum development

33. Since the demise of the Diplomas, shared 14-19 provision has become a very small or, in many cases, non-existent activity for 14-19 partnerships. Some boroughs reported incidences of institutions sharing 14-19 provision, often institutionally instigated but these were very much in the minority. Similarly, curriculum development, which was an important part of the Diploma initiative, did not appear to figure strongly as part of 14-19 partnership working.

34. In one borough, there is a task and finish group comprising curriculum deputies and representatives from the two colleges in the borough, which is devoted to discussion of models for Key Stage 4 development and progression pathways. In the same borough, there is another task and finish group that is concerned with Foundation Learning in terms of identifying the number of learners, what the curriculum should be and putting into place progression pathways.

Learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities (LLDD), students with special educational needs (SEN) and looked after children (LAC)

35. The exception to the rule in terms of shared provision and curriculum development is the work that many boroughs are undertaking in relation to LLDD, SEN and LAC. Several 14-19 leads indicated that their local authority took their responsibilities in this area very seriously and there are both a number of borough working/task and finish groups that are active in this area and considerable evidence of cross-borough working.

36. In one borough a specific programme of progression from special schools to the local college has been devised and a specialist college site for LLDD and SEN is being established.

Work experience/work-related learning

37. As with CEIAG, national policy on work-related learning has changed considerably since 2010. Work-related learning and the provision of work-experience at Key Stage 4 is no longer a statutory requirement for schools but, on the other hand, the Wolf Report has highlighted the importance of work experience and internship for 16-19 year olds. It is an essential element of 16-19 programmes of study and the proposed new Traineeships.

38. Despite the national policy change in this area, some boroughs still offer work experience, often through an Education Business Partnership, and a surprising number of schools still offer it to all their Key Stage 4 learners. Moreover, work experience and work-related learning are often seen as central areas of work for 14-19 partnerships or for dedicated working groups. This is particularly the case where these partnerships have increased their focus on apprenticeship and progression from education into employment, something which seems to have moved up the agenda as a result of the recession and a reduction in the number of young people seeking to progress directly into higher education at age 18/19.

39. One borough has a school vocational development service which operates somewhat like an education business partnership by offering all schools work experience and work-related learning opportunities. In this case, the college organizes its own work experience but buys in some of the local authority service. In another, there is a highly effective education business partnership, which is used as the major vehicle for liaison between the local education system and employers and which organizes work experience. In another local authority voluntary and community organisations are providing work experience for those learners who need more support before being offered an apprenticeship.

Vocational provision and apprenticeships

40. As a result of the demise of the Diplomas, the Wolf report’s criticism of many vocational qualifications and the increase in the number of sixth forms offering A Levels, in many boroughs there has been a reduction in discussion about the provision of vocational education and apprenticeships. There appeared to be very little 14-19 partnership work dedicated to vocational provision although more evidence of the promotion of apprenticeships. In a small number of boroughs there is a dedicated task group that works on issues related to apprenticeship, but local authority leads commented that this type of group is often not well integrated with the school-college related task groups.

41. In one borough there has been some real success with setting up an apprenticeship club for students in Years 10 and 11 which involves five schools – an idea that has been seen as so useful that it has now been taken on by another local authority. This same borough is beginning to see some success in converting internships to apprenticeships, particularly in the health sector.

Progression to higher education (HE)

42. The Aimhigher initiative spawned a number of collaborative networks and fora for the discussion of progression to HE and London has a strong record in this area. However, HEIs did not often appear to be playing an active part in current 14-19 partnerships and this was not an area of activity that came to the fore in discussions with 14-19 leads. There appeared to be more of a focus on the relationship between schools/colleges and the workplace, possibly because this had been somewhat neglected in the past and had risen up the agenda as a result of the recession and increases in HE fees.

43. However, one partnership highlighted the effective links it has with its local university, which arranges summer schools for borough residents. Economic development and regeneration

44. Local authorities have typically traditionally had separate departments for economic development/regeneration and education. However, as has been noted above, concerns about youth unemployment and a desire to see stronger relationships between education and employment have become more prominent.

45. For this reason, some 14-19 leads are beginning to look at mechanisms for involving both employers and those responsible for economic regeneration in 14-19 partnerships or working groups. This is particularly the case in those boroughs where there is extensive regeneration taking place and where local politicians and officers are keen that their residents have an opportunity to apply for and get the new jobs that will be created. In one borough there is joint work around this area that also involves higher education providers.

46. Interestingly, however, in other boroughs where employers and wider stakeholders have been involved in 14-19 partnerships in the past, 14-19 leads have been asked by education providers to reduce the number of these partners on committees because, it is argued, they have skewed the agenda away from educational issues. In some areas, therefore, when 14-19 partnerships have been reformed, they have focused their membership and discussions more closely around education providers or have set up separate, dedicated groups for those wishing to discuss employment and regeneration matters.

Introducing new providers

47. In most local authorities 14-19 partnerships do not collaboratively deliberate the introduction of new providers into their locality or have much say over those providers who wish to change their status (e.g. becoming academies) or increase their provision (e.g. by adding a sixth form).

48. However, in a small minority of authorities, there has been discussion and joint decision-making in the 14-19 partnership related to the introduction of a new provider, such as a University Technical College (UTC) or Studio School, as part of an attempt to make a comprehensive offer of provision in a particular locality.

Quality assurance and peer-to-peer support

49. Quality assurance of provision, while often not seen as a mainstream activity of the 14-19 partnerships that were visited, is viewed as important in a minority, particularly in relation to ‘alternative provision’. However, the existence of subject groupings and the organization of peer-to-peer support was viewed in a small number of boroughs as an area that is appropriate for discussion and support by 14-19 partnerships because of its relationship with data-sharing.

50. In one authority there is a ‘professional learning community’ for school-to-school support. In another, the local authority lead indicated that there was a highly effective cross-borough group dealing with quality assurance issues related to 14-19 provision and teaching and learning.

Continuing professional development (CPD) and staff development 51. Because of their information-sharing function, 14-19 partnerships themselves could be seen as a useful aspect of CPD and staff development in terms of their information and data sharing functions.

52. In a minority of partnerships, however, a more active stance is taken and the 14-19 partnership, because of its size and resources, is seen as a good vehicle for organizing CPD and staff development events and activities.

Shared resources 53. In common with the point above, 14-19 partnerships can be seen as a useful mechanism for sharing resources, either in terms of personnel or facilities/equipment. While this aspect of collaboration was strongly in evidence during the period of Diploma development, when considerable national funding was made available to 14-19 partnerships, it does not appear to be happening to a great extent under the current policy climate.

54. Nevertheless, there were a couple of examples of schools and colleges jointly funding posts and activities and bidding collaboratively for both funding and the introduction of a new provider. E. Conclusions and strategies for rebuilding and extending 14-19 partnership working in London

General conclusions

1. As a result of the questionnaire survey and consultations with 14-19 leads responsible for 20 boroughs, a picture of 14-19 activity and organization in London in 2013 is beginning to emerge.

2. The period from 2010 to the present has been a challenging one for 14-19 partnership working because it witnessed the demise of the 14-19 Diplomas, cutbacks in local authority expenditure and a weakening of its co-ordination role, an increase in institutional autonomy and a lack of policy emphasis on collaboration. All of these adversely impacted on 14-19 partnership working and many local authorities had to scale back levels of co-ordination, in almost all cases reducing the number of staff involved with this area of work. Local authorities as a whole went through a period of restructuring, which still continues in many cases.

3. This national context has affected all London boroughs, but it appears to have had a differential impact. Some partnerships have fared better than others, depending on:

   - the history of 14-19 collaboration; the degree of trust between education providers and the local authority;
   - the level of local political commitment to the 14-19 phase;
   - how adversely a particular local authority has been affected by expenditure cuts;
   - how far schools have been prepared to work with and buy back local authority services.

4. With regards to 14-19 partnership working, the differential impact was manifested, for example, in terms of:

   - whether there was a dedicated 14-19 lead;
   - the retention or disbanding of a 14-19 team;
   - the continuation of an overarching strategic 14-19 partnership with a clear but newly defined mission; • the extent of collaborative working through thematic working groups.

5. Following the difficult period between 2010-12, there now appears to be an upward trajectory of 14-19 partnership activity based on the need to implement RPA; the emergence of a post-16 performance agenda linked to Ofsted; responses to continued government reform in this area and the pressing need to tackle youth unemployment.

Rebuilding and extending partnership working 6. The research suggests that the resurgence and effectiveness of partnership working in a challenging policy environment could be attributed to a number of key factors:

• Elected members and senior local authority officers showing genuine interest in the 14-19 phase and appreciating the connection between employment, regeneration and the local education and training system. • Rebuilding a 14-19 team focused by bringing together officers with related roles (e.g. those with responsibility for school performance and improvement, apprenticeship and economic development or the youth service). • 14-19 leads reflecting in their work the local authority’s role as a ‘champion for young people’ and taking an even-handed approach to all providers. • The fostering of good relationships between the local authority and education and training providers, with an emphasis on personal contact and networking around common issues of concern. • Providing an evidence base in terms of school level data in order to have effective conversations with providers about institutional improvement. • Offering an up-to-date and reliable source of information about national, pan-London and local policy and their implications at stakeholder level. • Being prepared to adapt in terms of structures and ways of working and making sure that 14-19 partnership or task group agendas are carefully tailored to particular audiences and lead to decision-making and action where appropriate. • Using current national policy agendas (e.g. RPA), but seeing them in an expansive way that encompasses a range of 14-19 education and training issues (e.g., CEIAG, curriculum planning and new types of provision, work-related learning, apprenticeship).

- Gaining education provider buy-in either through subscriptions or through seed-corn funding and then goodwill.
- Carefully reading the national, pan-London and local policy contexts in order to initiate projects and fora for engaging local institutions and improving provision and opportunities for learners (see examples of good practice highlighted in Section D).

Areas for future development

7. As the populated analytical grid at Appendix 1 indicates, 14-19 partnership working in London has proved to be resilient given the context, although the balance of partnership organization and activity lies toward the less developed end, with a smaller proportion at the more developed end of the continuum. Nevertheless, the direction of travel appears to be positive, with 14-19 partnerships in London beginning to adapt to the new policy and financial context in creative ways.

8. At the same time, new challenges and potential foci, many of which were raised by borough 14-19 leads, are emerging and will require yet further innovation, building on aspects of leading practice across London:

- Apprenticeships and opportunities for youth employment.
- 14-19 curriculum and qualifications changes, with particular attention being paid to what has been termed the ‘overlooked middle’ (Hodgson and Spours forthcoming).
- The development of a stronger vocational learning offer across London.
- A focus on post-16 performance and improvements in teaching and learning.
- Links between education/training and economic regeneration agendas.
- Cross-borough working to realize efficiency gains and to address issues on a wider scale. References

Department for Education (2010) *The importance of teaching*, London: DfE.

Duckworth, K. (2012) *The educational and occupational experiences of London’s youth*, Presentation at the Institute of Education, University of London.

Higham, J. and Yeomans, D. (2010): Working together? Partnership approaches to 14–19 education in England, *British Educational Research Journal*, 36: 3, 379-401.

Hodgson, A. and Spours, K. (2012) *Young people’s participation, progression and transition to higher study and work: A London perspective*, Report for London Councils, London: IOE.

Hodgson, A. and Spours, K. (2006) The organisation of 14–19 education and training in England: beyond weakly collaborative arrangements, *Journal of Education and Work*, 19: 4, 325-342.

Hodgson, A. and Spours, K. (forthcoming) Tackling the crisis facing young people: building ‘high opportunity progression eco-systems’ *Oxford Review of Education*.

Mayor’s Education Inquiry (2012) *The Mayor’s Education Inquiry first report: London context and call for evidence*. London: Mayor’s Office. Available at: [http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Education%20Inquiry%20First%20Report_0.pdf](http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Education%20Inquiry%20First%20Report_0.pdf) (Accessed 3 May 2012).

Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2011) *Graduates and young people in the labour market*, London ONS Briefing Note, London: ONS

Wolf, A. (2011) *Review of vocational education: the Wolf Report*. London: DfE. Appendix 1. The extent of 14-19 partnership organization and activity in 20 London boroughs

| Partnership organization | Low | Medium | High | Not mentioned | |--------------------------|-----|--------|------|---------------| | 1. Partnership history/background | Weak partnership history – affected by increased competition 2 | History of partnership but not developing in the new context 9 | History of partnership & reshaped in the current policy context 9 | | | 2. Structure | No main partnership, but some groups 8 | 14-19 partnership but undeveloped infrastructure 3 | Developed 14-19 partnership with working groups 9 | | | 3. Leadership | No designated 14-19 lead person 0 | 14-19 lead but with diverse responsibilities 13 | Dedicated 14-19 lead & team 7 | | | 4. Seniority of membership | Senior managers not represented on 14-19 partnership 2 | Limited senior management participation 16 | Senior managers playing an active part in all aspects of partnership 0 | 2 | | 5. Meetings, communication & decision-making | Infrequent meetings, information sharing 7 | Regular scheduled meetings – primarily discussions 8 | Calendar of meetings – info sharing, discussions and decision-making 5 | | | 6. Role of local authority | LA taking hands off stance towards 14-19 with little support from institutions 4 | LA supportive but having to scale back on 14-19 – varied institutional support 12 | Proactive LA & actively supporting 14-19 agenda with institutional buy-in 4 | | | 7. Range & commitment of partners (e.g. schools, colleges, WBL providers, employers, HE, Connexions, LA, regeneration agencies) | Limited involvement from all partners 10 | All education providers involved but not all wider stakeholders 8 | All relevant partners involved 2 | | | 8. Mission and purposes | No clearly defined mission and purposes | Mission & purposes defined but not driving partnership action | Mission & purposes regularly reviewed and guiding actions | 2 | |------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---| | 9. Focus/breadth of collaboration | Limited focus (e.g. RPA, CEIAG, NEETs) linked to national agendas | Mainly focused on national policy, limited local agenda | Comprehensive focus linked to national and local agendas | 3 | | 10. Strategic planning and future direction | No systematic strategic planning | Strategic planning in some areas (e.g. NEETs) | Comprehensive short, medium and long-term planning | 2 | | 11. Working collaboratively beyond borough boundaries | Focus purely on borough agendas | Strategic planning in some areas (e.g. NEETs) | Extensive collaboration at sub-regional, regional and national levels | 1 |

| Partnership activity | Low | Medium | High | Not mentioned | |----------------------|-----|--------|------|---------------| | 1. Information sharing forum | Irregular events around national policy priorities | Attempts to look at how national policy impacts on local practice | Regular updates and discussion re: national, local & regional agendas | 104 | | 2. Data sharing | No data sharing | Data sharing without the use of institutional names or joint action | Extensive transparent institutional data sharing leading to decision-making | | | 3. RPA | Limited to discussion and strategies for NEET reduction | RPA regarded as important driver of 14-19 partnership and emerging broader RPA agenda | Expansive concept of RPA linked to improving provision, progression and transition for all groups | 6 | | 4. CEIAG | No real discussion & outsourced | CEIAG discussion but varied practice | CEIAG network & agreement/joint work & guarantees for young people | 3 | | 5. Shared course information/prospectus | No shared course information or prospectus 0 | Limited joint information used by some providers 2 | Openly supported & promoted 14-19 course information & prospectus 2 | 16 | | 6. NEETs | Limited to statutory requirements in this area 4 | Local collaborative NEETs strategy emerging 11 | Creative strategy for tackling NEETs, improving provision, progression and transition for all 5 | 0 | | 7. Shared 14-19 provision & curriculum development | No shared provision or joint curriculum development 3 | Some shared provision in particular areas 11 | Extensive 14-19 shared provision & associated curriculum development 0 | 6 | | 8. LLDD/SEN/looked after children/inclusion | Limited to statutory requirements in this area 4 | Some joint in the inclusion area 7 | Creative strategy for inclusion based on 14-19 collaborative working 4 | 5 | | 9. Work experience/work related learning | No joint work-related activity - left to individual institutions 6 | Work-related activity for some learners/programmes only 2 | Work experience & work-related learning as entitlement for all 14-19 year olds 4 | 8 | | 10. Vocational provision & Apprenticeships | No discussion of vocational provision & apprenticeship 3 | Discussion of vocational provision & apprenticeship but no joint action 9 | Collaborative strategy for building vocational provision & apprenticeship 4 | 4 | | 11. Progression to HE | Discussion of HE progression limited to individual providers 2 | Limited number of partnership links with HE providers 1 | Collaborative strategy for supporting progression to HE 2 | 15 | | 12. Economic development & regeneration | No economic development agenda 7 | Some economic information in connection with 14-19 agenda 6 | Clear relationship between 14-19 provision and local economic development agenda and agencies 0 | 7 | | 13. Introducing new providers | No discussion of introduction and role of new providers 6 | Consideration of possible new providers in the local area 4 | Active collaborative strategy for new providers as part of the partnership 1 | 9 | | 14. Quality assurance & peer-to-peer support | Not considered part of 14-19 partnership working | Some QA and peer-to-peer support around particular areas of need | An active and formal quality assurance system involving peer-to-peer support | 9 | |---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---| | 15. CPD and staff development | No joint CPD/staff development activities | Some joint CPD activities | Joint 14-19 CPD programme | 7 | | 16. Shared resources (e.g. website) | No shared resources | Shared resources in one or more areas | Shared resources in a number of areas (e.g. website) | 9 | The Institute of Education has been commissioned as the Academic Partner to London Councils: Young People’s Education and Skills, who have funded this research. Copyright London Councils 2013